We all know that the image quality is awesome--way better than the trollish D70--even the 300D produces awesome pictures.

but don't be mislead into thinking that image quality is perfect. yes, canon has the awesome combination fo DiGiC 2 and their CMOS sensors--but there is noise!

And more than Nikon! it's jsut that it's not always visible. then what's the big deal? well, your prints will be dissapointing, and you can't push your image on curves in photoshop that much---without images becoming blotchy!

Finally: The Canon is not noise free, but it sure does have really little. It's not usually viisble, but beware if you think you can use any glass on it and expect wonderful shots! Beware of those say, "crank up to ISO 1600 and keep it there"! Canon's noise is apparently (not my opinion) more chromatic than Nikon's, but, in all fairness, i can't see it so.

Finally(yes, finally): CANON does have noise, but it also has the best pic quality. So the same rules apply: use lenses in middle spots (f/8), keep ISOs low, and hand hold upto 1/60th.

Bluedog

04-24-2005, 09:41 PM

@ ISO 1600 they'll all have noise but quite manageable with the right program.

TheObiJuan

04-24-2005, 09:46 PM

I have the camera and shoot at ISO 1600 and f/2 all the time. I never have problems with noise. Do you actually have the camera and take pics or are you simply providing your opinion on what you see from other's pics.

I have rescued underexposed pics using levels many times and still get very useable results. Let me see some of this blotchyness?

Please, post some comparisons bw it and the Nikon D70.

TheObiJuan

04-24-2005, 09:49 PM

@ ISO 1600 they'll all have noise but quite manageable with the right program.
And truthfully, I have come to like the look of the ISO 1600 noise. I stopped using neat image/noise ninja really.

ReF

04-24-2005, 09:55 PM

of course there is noise at high ISOs! the canon 20D and XT spit out pretty darn good results for ISO 800 and up IMO. BTW, noise reduction software works miracles on high ISO noise!

oh yeah, and i'm just starting to realize how great it is not having to always stop down to f8 to get sharp results. sharp lenses are well worth the price!

Sigbhu

04-24-2005, 09:57 PM

i've had two of them before getting my cash back (i don't advise you to do the same--i didn't have time for it, really) . however, the quality is a LOT worse at ISO 1600--print it out and see!

TheObiJuan

04-24-2005, 10:08 PM

I have many prints at ISO 1600 and they look fantastic. If you did have two and made prints, please feel free to post some of the 100% crops from the images. I would like to see the "horrible" noise..

here is one from my camera at ISO 1600. I was using the 50mm f/1.8 at f/2.

http://www.styleandspeed.com/theobijuan/pics/rustyazn.jpg

I have even pushed some images to 3200 on my 350D and was more than pleased with the results.

Bluedog

04-24-2005, 10:13 PM

LOL ... when converting RAW ISO 1600 images I use the noise reduction feature in RSE for this. You can pretty easily make an ISO 1600 into what I'd say is at least a ISO 200, which is excellent quality. Theres an example in my PBase gallery.

ps: mental note to get the 50mm f/1.8 lens ... ;)

TheObiJuan

04-24-2005, 10:43 PM

I don't use the reduction on RSE. I tried it twice but found it was really
unecessary. I noticed that on my last update that RSE shows the image as very pixelated at all times. From 16%+ pixelation is crappy. So using it to adjust sharpness, contrast, or anything really is worthless. Does yours do this?

edit: the 50 is great. ;)
Background blur is more than pleasing. I dropped it yesterday at the Tiger photo shoot. I was changing to the 135 SF lens quickly and the 50 slammed to the ground. It was a dirt floor, but it took it. No problems focusing. For 58 bucks that I paid for it I think it is worth it's weight in gold.

Bluedog

04-24-2005, 11:19 PM

I don't use the reduction on RSE. I tried it twice but found it was really
unecessary. I noticed that on my last update that RSE shows the image as very pixelated at all times. From 16%+ pixelation is crappy. So using it to adjust sharpness, contrast, or anything really is worthless. Does yours do this?

Not at all as it works quite well. They only issue that I have run into is it sometimes takes a few seconds for the converting process to take affect. There again I only use RSE for editing high ISO images and the Canon Raw software for all others.

TheObiJuan

04-25-2005, 01:18 AM

My DPP never allowed me to open images. I click on my documents when it is opened up and then it brings up a windows error message. Then it closes up.
Don't I have some good luck with software?

Bluedog

04-25-2005, 04:48 AM

Juan I had a lot of issues with the Canon software that came with my A95. It worked but sometimes would hangup just doing the simplest of things. Before I installed the EOS software that came with my XT I did an uninstall of the A95 stuff and still found over 30 entries in Windows Registry pointing to Canon stuff that I edited out. So far not one problem with the EOS XT software this time.

TheObiJuan

04-25-2005, 01:03 PM

sigbhu, will you post some of the 350D pictures?
If you need a host, email them to me and I can host them. ;)

gabester

04-25-2005, 01:28 PM

I have many prints at ISO 1600 and they look fantastic. If you did have two and made prints, please feel free to post some of the 100% crops from the images. I would like to see the "horrible" noise..

here is one from my camera at ISO 1600. I was using the 50mm f/1.8 at f/2.

I have even pushed some images to 3200 on my 350D and was more than pleased with the results.

Here's a couple of (ISO 1600) pics, one with the much maligned kit lens (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~alba/IMG_0334.JPG) (at 18mm) and one with an old Canon 35-135 F4.0/5.6 lens (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~alba/IMG_0373.JPG) (at 135 mm) taken at a local play this weekend where flash wasn't allowed. So the optics aren't the best, but you can see that the noise is very tolerable.

Bluedog

04-25-2005, 03:20 PM

Here's a couple of (ISO 1600) pics, one with the much maligned kit lens (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~alba/IMG_0334.JPG) (at 18mm) and one with an old Canon 35-135 F4.0/5.6 lens (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~alba/IMG_0373.JPG) (at 135 mm) taken at a local play this weekend where flash wasn't allowed. So the optics aren't the best, but you can see that the noise is very tolerable.

those images would clean up rather nicely with a noise application, although they aren't bad at all.

D70FAN

04-25-2005, 03:36 PM

Here's a couple of (ISO 1600) pics, one with the much maligned kit lens[/URL] (at 18mm) and one with an old Canon 35-135 F4.0/5.6 lens[/URL] (at 135 mm) taken at a local play this weekend where flash wasn't allowed. So the optics aren't the best, but you can see that the noise is very tolerable.

Not too bad. Could you run these through Noise Ninja and repost?

P.S. maybe a little unsharp mask as well. This would give everyone a better idea of how good these can really look with just a 2 step PP.

Thanks.

ReF

04-25-2005, 09:43 PM

LOL ... when converting RAW ISO 1600 images I use the noise reduction feature in RSE for this. You can pretty easily make an ISO 1600 into what I'd say is at least a ISO 200, which is excellent quality. Theres an example in my PBase gallery.

ps: mental note to get the 50mm f/1.8 lens ... ;)

i'm not sure if people are just copying what other people say, or if there has been some quality control issues but the 50mm f1.8 has be getting a lot of bad reviews over on fredmiranda.com recently (bad batch?). i have the mk I version of this lens and i don't know if the new one is any different, but my only complaint is that the background blur (bokeh) isn't as pleasing to the eye as any of my other lenses. this i think is due to the fact that the lens only has a five blade diaphragm blades. instead of blurred circles in the background there are little pentagons. i think the 50mm f1.8 MK II has the same # of blades but there was no info on this at canon's website (their own website, sad huh?). other than that this lens is great.

gabester

04-26-2005, 10:54 AM

those images would clean up rather nicely with a noise application, although they aren't bad at all.

Not too bad. Could you run these through Noise Ninja and repost? P.S. maybe a little unsharp mask as well. This would give everyone a better idea of how good these can really look with just a 2 step PP.

Man, tough crowd. LOL I just wanted to give an idea of how relatively clean the unretouched JPEG was at ISO 1600. I actually haven't used NN since my Powershot G5 days, but I will oblige (first pic is with standard XT profile and defaults; second pic is "unsharp masked" in NN, since I don't have PS on my work PC):

Yes it's obvious from the grid that I haven't bought a NN license yet - please no lecturing! :) The truth is, I don't need use it since I don't print over 8" x 10" and have yet to notice any appreciable noise at that resolution (even pushed to 3200 ISO) with the XT.

suemccartin

04-28-2005, 09:16 AM

Using an original Rebel, I shoot in iso 800 a lot (karate in a gymnasium) and I don't find the pictures unacceptably noisey as they come out of the camera even when blown up to 8x10 (and often heavily cropped and printed at 8X10). The 1600 iso shots look about like a film frame at the same speed, grainey as heck (i.e. noisey). Where can I find this Noise Ninja software everyone is talking about??????????

Bluedog

04-28-2005, 09:29 AM

Just type in on Google and you should find it. One thing is its not Free, cost $69.00 I believe. Also you can try to look for Neat Image which is Free and works alright. If shooting in RAW format try Raw Shooter Essentials and its Free and works quite well with a Noise Filter option built in the program.

MacHeadCase

05-09-2005, 05:44 PM

This is Windows-only software. Does anyone know if a Mac OS X version is in the works?

jeisner

05-09-2005, 06:45 PM

So the same rules apply: use lenses in middle spots (f/8), keep ISOs low, and hand hold upto 1/60th.

Sorry if this has already been covered in this thread (haven't read it all) but I can't resist correcting this point say as to not mislead other novices out there who may be reading this...

1) What arpeture you use depends mostly on the DOF you are trying to achieve, don't just use f8, you may for exampe wish to use 1.8, 2.8 or 4 for a shallow DOF effect or f16 for landscapes with foregrounds you want in focus.

2) Hand hold up to 1/60th with which focal length, a 50mm fine... with a 20mm I will handhold 1/20 or longer and with a 300mm I will handhold at 1/300 or longer... What is this 1/60 generalisation????

Only point I do agree with is keeping ISOs as low as possible within the particular situation...